Recently the Court decided the case of Keystone Properties v. Steven Campo, No. 08-189. In Keystone, the Court held that a party whose closing attorney stopped the closing upon discovering a lein on the property that was not uncovered during the title search, but which remained ready willing and able to purchase the property over a year after the initial scheduled closing. Said the Court:

Although in the context of this case, the length of time that has passed since the

agreement was entered into by the parties gives us pause, we decline to hold that the

passage of time, standing alone, is sufficient to warrant a conclusion that the agreement

was abandoned. The duty to make such a finding rests with the trial justice, and we

sustain the finding unless it is clearly erroneous. He declared that, “[t]he record is devoid

of any intent on the part of Keystone to abandon the [a]greement. There was never a sign

of reluctance, Keystone never backed off.” See Fisher, 947 A.2d at 253 (finding that

time was not of the essence in that contract and that any suggestion to the contrary was

incorrect). It is not our function to second guess this determination.